Transcription

1 Palmieri v Mattimore 2014 NY Slip Op 30300(U) January 16, 2014 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 20155/2008 Judge: William B. Rebolini Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

2 [* 1] Short Form Order UPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART 7 - SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: B. REBOLINI Mario Palmieri and Pal ieri Realty LLC, Silvia Palmieri, Lidia almieri and Marisa Palmieri, -aga nst- Plaintiffs, Motion Sequence No.: 004; MOT.D Motion Date: 8/14/13 Submitted: 10/23/13 Attorney for Plaintiffs: Timothy J. Mattimore, Flower, Medalie & Markowitz 24 E. Main Street, Suite 201 Defendant. Bay Shore, NY Attorney for Defendant: L' Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, LLP 1001 Franklin A venue Garden City, NY Clerk of the Court Upon the follow ng papers numbered I to 36 read upon this application for.summary judgment: Notice of M ion and supporting papers, 1-24; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers, 25-33; Replyin Affidavits and supporting papers, 34-36; it is ORDERED tha~he motion by the defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 awarding summary judgment in hi favor is granted to the extent that the claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs and the corpor te plaintiffs claim for recovery of the cost of repairs performed on the subject property are dis issed, and in all other respects the motion is denied; and it is further I :

3 [* 2] Page No. 2 ORDERED that he caption of the action is hereby amended, as follows: Supreme Court of the St te of New York County of Suffolk )( Palmieri Realty LLC, I - against 1 Timothy J. Mattimore, Plaintiff, Index No /2008 Defendant )( Plaintiffs comm ced this action to recover for alleged legal malpractice action that arising out of the defendant's re resentation of the plaintiffs in connection with the purchase of real property located at 1090 Suffolk venue in Brentwood, New York (the subject property). The plaintiffs allege that the defendan misinformed them as to the true rental income generated by the subject property, resulting ind ages. The plaintiffs also seek to recoup money they expended to repair the subject property. The d fondant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff Ma o Palmieri alleges that he was approached by the defendant with regard to a potential purchase oft e subject property. The defendant had represented Mr. Palmieri and other family members in real state, zoning, and other legal matters for a period of about 15 years. The original asking price for the property was $900, but after negotiation the price agreed upon was $700,000,00. Acco ding to the documentary evidence, the property was subject to a 50-year lease held by JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase"), which was set to expire in Under the lease, Chase paid a total of $3, 50 a year in rent. At the time of the sale, Chase no longer occupied the subject property and ha subleased each of the buildings thereon. One was leased to the State of New York for a monthl rent of $5, The other building was subleased to the Consulate of El Salvador for a monthl. rent of$4, Mr. Palmieri testified that the defendant did not inform him that he would only e receiving the rent under the main lease until that lease expired in 2011, and he testified that the d fendant told him several times that he would be receiving $9, in rent each month. He further laimed that he never saw the lease documents until after the closing and that the leases were not attached to the contract that he signed. Upon discovering that he would receive only $ per month ($3, for the year) in rent from the property, he was outraged. He testified that he calle the defendant, who apologized and said he made a mistake. He states in his affidavit that if he ha known the lack ofrental income from the property, he would have opted not to buy it. He also tes ified that he did not know until after the closing on the subject property on

4 [* 3] Page No. 3 September 21, 2007, th t the defendant had acted as attorney for both sides and had been the real estate broker on the sal and purchase of the subject property. Mr. Palmieri's affidavit also notes that, although the contr ct of sale for the subject property originally named his three daughters as purchasers, it was decid d at the closing to take title in the name of Palmieri Realty, LLC, a limited liability company. The defendant nied at his examination before trial that he failed to disclose the rental income that Palmieri Re lty LLC would receive under the Chase lease until it expired in He admitted, however, that he had acted as the seller's attorney and the broker on the transaction and that he had received fe s from both activities. It is also clear from his testimony that he also represented the plaintif s and was also paid a legal fee by them for his work. The defendant also submitted a real estate a praisal of the subject property from John Grossman, a qualified appraiser. The appraisal states that on the date of the closing, September 21, 2007, the fair market value of the subject property encum ered by the Chase lease was $972,000, or $272,000 more than the plaintiff paid for the property. The proponent f a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the c se. To grant summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is resented (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 508 NYS2d 923 [1986]; Sillman v Twen ieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 165 NYS2d 498 [1957]). The movant has the initial urden of proving entitlement to summary judgment (Winegrad v N. Y. U. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 85, 487 NYS2d 316 [ 1985]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardles of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (id.). Once such proof has been offered, the burden then shifts to the opposing party, who, in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment, must proffer vidence in admissible form and must "show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact" (C LR 3212 [b]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d 595 [1980]). As the co rt's function on such a motion is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to resolve issues of act or to determine matters of credibility, the facts alleged by the opposing party and all inferences hat may be drawn are to be accepted as true (see Roth v Barreto, 289 AD2d 557, 735 NYS2d 197 [2 Dept 2001 ]; O'Neill v Fishkill, 134 AD2d 487, 521 NYS2d 272 [2d Dept 1987]). It is noted at the outset that the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant has not submitted proof in admissible form beca se no affidavit has been provided from a person with knowledge of the facts is without merit. The act that supporting proof is placed in the record by way of an attorney's affidavit with an anne ed deposition transcript and other documentary evidence, rather than an affidavit of facts on pers nal knowledge, does not defeat a party's entitlement to summary judgement (see Ellman v Village o Rhinebeck, 41AD3d635, 838 NYS2d 641 [2d Dept 2007]; Blazer v Tri County Ambulette Se ice, Inc., 285 AD2d 575, 728 NYS2d 742 [2d Dept 2001 ]; see also Gaeta vnew York News, Inc., 62 NY2d 340, 477NYS2d 82 [1984];Pavane vmarte, 109 AD3d 970, 971 NYS2d 562 [2d Dept 2 13]).

5 [* 4] Page No. 4 In an action to re over damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney "failed to exerc se the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal pro ession and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actu l and ascertainable damages... To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she wo ld have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the la er' s negligence" (Barnave v Davis, 108 AD3d 582, 969 NYS2d 139 [2d Dept 2013 ]; Rudolf v Sh y11e, Dachs, Sta11isci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442, 835 NYS2d 534 [2007], quoting McCoy Fei11ma11, 99NY2d 295, , 755 NYS2d 693 [2002]). The plaintiff must show that the att ney's breach of a professional duty caused actual damages; conclusory allegations of damages r injuries based upon speculation will not suffice (Holschauer v Fisher, 5 AD3d 553, 772 NYS2d 836 [2d Dept 2004]). To succeed on a summary judgment motion dismissing a complaint in an action to recover damages for legal malpr ctice, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the essentia elements of its legal malpractice cause of action (Gershkovich v Miller, Rosado & Algios, LLP, 96 AD3d 716, 945 NYS2d 567 [2d Dept 2012]; Boglia v Greenberg 63 AD3d 973, 882 NYS2d 215 [2d Dept 2009];Ali v Fink, 67 AD3d 935, 936, 890 NYS2d 576 [2d Dept 2009]). Where th claims involve allegations that ordinary jurors could not evaluate based upon their own knowle ge and experience, an expert's affidavit delineating the proper standard of professional care ands ll to which the defendant is required to adhere under the circumstances is required (Natale v Jeffr Samet & Assoc., 308 AD2d 568, 764 NYS2d 883 [2d Dept 2003], appeal denied 2 NY3d 701, 7 8 NYS2d 460 [2004]). However, where the plaintiffs sole claim is for breach of an expressed romise to achieve a specific result, expert testimony is not necessary to make out aprimafacie c se (see Serhofer v Groman & Wolf, P.C., 203 AD2d 354, 610 NYS2d 294 [2d Dept 1994 ]), and a attorney's affirmation may serve as an expert opinion establishing the standard for determinin the adequacy of the professional service rendered by the defendant (Landa v Blocker, 87 AD3d 71, 928 NYS2d 779 [2d Dept 2011]; Zasso v Maher, 226 AD2d 366, 640 NYS2d 243 [2d Dept l _ 96]). That portion oft emotion for summary judgment which seeks dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for damages resulting fl om repairs performed on the subject property is granted. Pursuant to the terms of the Chase lease and the subleases, the tenants were responsible for the cost of repairs on the subject property. Any amages sustained by plaintiffs are due to their failure to pursue their legal remedies under the ter s of the Chase lease. Their choice not to do so does not impose any legal obligation on the defen ant with regard to the cost ofrepairs to the subject property. That portion oft emotion for summary judgment which seeks dismissal of the claims of the individual plaintiffs mu t also be granted. While the contract of sale named three of the individual plaintiffs, title to the pr perty was taken by Palmieri Realty, LLC. Thus, any cause of action for damages lies with the Ii ited liability corporation alone, not with the individual members thereof.

6 [* 5] Page No. 5 The defendant's pplication must otherwise be denied, since it has not been established that Palmieri Realty, LLC su fered no damages, and there exist issues of fact as to each of the essential elements of the malprac ce claim. Dated: ;/!G /f o/i HON. WILLIAM B. REBOLINI, J.S.C. I --rlnal DISPOSITION I X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

Lugo v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 30267(U) January 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 105267/2010 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Republished from New York State Unified Court System's